The origin of Mr.
Murray’s connection with Lord Byron
was as follows. Lord Byron had made Mr.
Dallas a present of the MS. of the first two cantos of ‘Childe Harold,’ and allowed him to make
arrangements for their publication. Mr. Dallas’s first intention
was to offer them to the publisher of ‘English
Bards and Scotch Reviewers,’ but Cawthorn did not rank sufficiently high among his brethren of the trade. He
was precluded from offering them to Longman and Co.
because of their refusal to publish the Satire. He then went to Mr. Miller, of Albemarle Street, and left the manuscript with him,
“enjoining the strictest secrecy as to the author.” After a few days’
consideration Miller declined to publish the poem, principally because
of the sceptical stanzas which it contained, and also because of its denunciation as a
“plunderer” of his friend and patron the Earl of
Elgin, who was mentioned by name in the original manuscript of the poem.

I am perfectly aware of the justice of your remarks, and am
convinced that if ever the poem is published the same

206

MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY

objections will be made in much stronger terms. But, as it was intended to be a
poem on Ariosto’splan, that is
to say on no plan at all, and, as is usual in similar
cases, having a predilection for the worst passages, I shall retain those
parts, though I cannot venture to defend them. Under these circumstances I
regret that you decline the publication, on my own account, as I think the book
would have done better in your hands; the pecuniary part, you know, I have
nothing to do with . . . But I can perfectly conceive, and indeed approve your
reasons, and assure you my sensations are not Archiepiscopal enough as yet to regret the rejection of my Homilies.

“Next to these publishers,” proceeds Dallas, “I wished to oblige Mr.
Murray, who had then a shop opposite St. Dunstan’s Church, in Fleet
Street. Both he and his father before him had published for myself. He had expressed to me
his regret that I did not carry him the ‘English Bards and Scotch Reviewers.’ But this was after its success; I
think he would have refused it in its embryo state. After Lord
Byron’s arrival I had met him, and he said he wished I would obtain
some work of his Lordship’s for him. I now had it in my power, and I put ‘Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage’ into
his hands, telling him that Lord Byron had made me a present of it,
and that I expected he would make a very liberal arrangement with me for it.

“He took some days to consider, during which time he consulted his
literary advisers, among whom, no doubt, was Mr.
Gifford, who was Editor of the Quarterly Review. That Mr.
Gifford gave a favourable Opinion I afterwards learned from Mr. Murray himself; but the objections I have stated
stared him in the face, and he was kept in suspense between the desire of possessing a
work of Lord Byron’s and the fear of an
unsuccessful speculation. We came to this conclusion: that he should print, at his
expense, a handsome quarto edition, the profits of which I should share equally with
him, and that the agreement for the copyright should depend upon the success of this
edition. When I told this to Lord Byron he was highly pleased, but
still doubted the copyright being worth my acceptance, promising, however, if the poem
went through

That Mr. Murray was quick in
recognizing the just value of poetical works and the merits of Lord
Byron’s poem is evident from the fact that at the very time that
Miller declined to publish ‘Childe Harold,’ he accepted a poem by Rosa
Matilda (Temple) which Murray had refused to publish,
and that it was sold the year after as waste paper, whilst Murray
jumped at the offer of publishing Lord Byron’s poem, and did not
hesitate to purchase the copyright for a large price. Mr. Murray had
long desired to make Lord Byron’s acquaintance, and now that
Mr. Dallas had arranged with him for the
publication of the first two cantos of ‘Childe Harold,’ he had many
opportunities of seeing Byron at his place of business. The first time
that he saw him was when he called one day with Mr.
Hobhouse in Fleet Street. He afterwards looked in from time to time, while
the sheets were passing through the press, fresh from the fencing rooms of Angelo and Jackson,
and used to amuse himself by renewing his practice of “Carte et Tierce,” with
his walking-cane directed against the book-shelves, while Murray was
reading passages from the poem, with occasional ejaculations of admiration; on which
Byron would say, “You think that a good idea, do you,
Murray?” Then he would fence and lunge with his walking
stick at some special book which he had picked out on the shelves before him. As
Murray afterwards said, “I was often very glad to
get rid of him!”

A correspondence took place with regard to certain omissions, alterations, and
improvements which were strongly urged both by Mr.
Dallas and the publisher. Mr. Murray
wrote as follows:—

An absence of some days, passed in the country, has prevented me
from writing earlier, in answer to your obliging letters.* I have now, however,
the pleasure of sending you, under a separate cover, the first proof sheets of
your poem; which is so good as to be entitled to all your care in rendering it
perfect. Besides its general merits, there are parts which, I am tempted to
believe, far excel anything that you have hitherto published; and it were
therefore grievous indeed if you do not condescend to bestow upon it all the
improvements of which your mind is so capable. Every correction already made is
valuable, and this circumstance renders me more confident in soliciting your
further attention. There are some expressions concerning Spain and Portugal
which, however just at the time they were conceived, yet, as they do not
harmonise with the now prevalent feeling, I am persuaded would so greatly
interfere with the popularity which the poem is, in other respects, certainly
calculated to excite, that, in compassion to your publisher, who does not
presume to reason upon the subject, otherwise than as a mere matter of
business, I hope your goodness will induce you to remove them; and with them
perhaps some religious sentiments which may deprive me of some customers
amongst the Orthodox. Could I flatter myself that these suggestions were not
obtrusive, I would hazard another,—that you would add the two promised
cantos, and complete the poem. It were cruel indeed not to perfect a work which
contains so much that is excellent Your fame, my Lord, demands it. You are
raising a monument that will outlive your present feelings; and it should
therefore be constructed in such a manner as to excite no other association
than that of respect and admiration for your character and genius. I trust that
you will pardon the warmth of this address, when I assure you that it arises,
in the greatest degree, from a sincere regard for your best reputation; with,
however, some view to that

portion of it
which must attend the publisher of so beautiful a poem as you are capable of
rendering in the ‘Romaunt of
Childe Harold.’”

In compliance with the suggestions of the publisher, Byron altered and improved the stanzas relating to Elgin and Wellington. With respect to
the religious, or anti-religious sentiments, Byron wrote to Murray: “As for the ‘orthodox,’ let
us hope they will buy on purpose to abuse—you will forgive the one if they will
do the other.” Yet he did alter Stanza VIII., and inserted what Moore calls a “magnificent stanza,” in place
of one that was churlish and sneering, and in all respects very much inferior.

Byron then proceeded to another point. “Tell me
fairly, did you show the MS. to some of your corps?” “I will have no traps
for applause,” he wrote to Mr. Murray,
at the same time forbidding him to show the manuscript of ‘Childe Harold’ to his Aristarchus, Mr. Gifford, though he
had no objection to letting it be seen by any one else. But it was too late. Mr.
Gifford had already seen the manuscript, and pronounced a favourable opinion
as to its great poetic merits. Byron was not satisfied with this
assurance, and seemed, in his next letter, to be very angry. He could not bear to have it
thought that he was endeavouring to ensure a favourable review of his work in the Quarterly. To Mr. Dallas he wrote (Sept. 23rd, 1811):—

“I will be angry with Murray.
It was a book-selling, back-shop, Paternoster Row, paltry proceeding; and if the
experiment had turned out as it deserved, I would have raised all Fleet Street, and
borrowed the giant’s staff from St Dunstan’s Church, to immolate the
betrayer of trust. I have written to him as he was never written to before by an
author, I’ll be sworn; and I hope you will amplify my wrath, till it has an
effect upon him.”

210

MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY

Byron at first objected to allow the new poem to be
published with his name, thinking that this would bring down upon him the enmity of his
critics in the North, as well as the venom of the southern scribblers, whom he had enraged
by his Satire. At last, on Mr. Murray’s strong representation, he consented to
allow his name to be published on the title-page as the author. Even to the last, however,
his doubts were great as to the probable success of the poem; and he more than once talked
of suppressing it.

“‘Childe
Harold’s Pilgrimage’ must wait till Murray’s is finished. He is making a tour in Middlesex, and is to
return soon, when high matter may be expected. He wants to have it in quarto, which is
a cursed unsaleable size; but it is pestilent long, and one must obey one’s
publisher.”

The whole of the sheets were printed off in the following month of January;
and the work was published on the 1st of March, 1812. Of the first edition only 500 copies,
demy quarto, were printed.

It is unnecessary to say with what applause the book was received. The
impression it produced was as instantaneous as it proved to be lasting. Byron himself briefly described the result of the publication
in his memoranda: “I awoke one morning and found myself famous.” The
publisher had already taken pains to spread abroad the merits of the poem. Many of his
friends had re-echoed its praises. The attention of the public was fixed upon the

* The Rev. Francis Hodgson
was then residing at Cambridge as Fellow and Tutor of King’s College. He
formed an intimate friendship with Byron, who
communicated with him freely as to his poetical as well as his religious
difficulties. Hodgson afterwards became Provost of Eton.

SUCCESS OF ‘CHILDE HAROLD.’

211

work; and in three days
after its appearance the whole edition was disposed of. When Mr. Dallas went to see Lord Byron at his
house in St. James’s Street, he found him loaded with letters from critics, poets,
and authors, all lavish of their raptures. A handsome new edition, in octavo, was proposed,
to which his Lordship agreed.

“After speaking to Lord Byron of
the sale, and settling the new edition, I said ‘How can I possibly think of this
rapid sale, and the profits likely to ensue, without
recollecting’—‘What?’ interposed Byron.
‘Think,’ continued Dallas,
‘what a sum your work may produce.’ ‘I shall be
rejoiced,’ said Byron, ‘and wish it doubled and
trebled; but do not talk to me of money. I never will receive money for my
writings.’ ‘I ought not to differ in an opinion which puts hundreds
into my purse, but others’—He put out his hand to me, shook mine,
and turned the conversation.”

Eventually Mr. Murray consented to
give Mr. Dallas £600 for the copyright of the
poem; although Mr. Gifford and others were of
opinion that it might prove a bad bargain at that price. There was, however, one exception,
namely Mr. Rogers, who told Mr.
Murray not to be disheartened, for he might rely upon its turning out the
most fortunate purchase he had ever made; and so it proved. Three thousand copies of the
second and third editions of the poem in octavo were printed; and these went off in rapid
succession.

I am truly anxious to know of your personal safety during this
weather of turbulence and disaster. Only

212

MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY

three mails had
arrived at 3 o’clock to-day. I called upon Mr. Gifford to-day, and he expresses himself quite delighted
with the annexed Poems, more particularly with the ‘Song from the Portuguese,’ and the
‘Stanzas to a Lady
Weeping.’ The latter, however, he thinks you ought to slip
quietly amongst the Poems in ‘Childe Harold’; for the present work is to be read by women,
and this would disturb the poetical feeling. Besides, as it has been already
published in a newspaper, it does not accord with your character to appear to
think too much of it. If you allow me, I would transfer it to ‘Childe Harold,’ and insert the ‘Impromptu’ in its place.

Mr. Dallas has sent his proofs with
about 200 alterations of the pointings merely. Now, as Gifford made nearly as many, I could not
venture so direct an affront upon him as to overturn all that his care has
taken. Mr. Moore returned his proof to
me without a correction. I hope to go to press immediately upon receipt of your
Lordship’s letter. Mr. Gifford is really delighted.

On the appearance of ‘Childe
Harold’s Pilgrimage,’ Lord Byron
became an object of interest in the fashionable world of London. His poem was the subject
of conversation everywhere, and many literary, noble, and royal personages desired to make
his acquaintance. In the month of June he was invited to a party at Miss
Johnson’s, at which His Royal Highness the Prince Regent was present. As Lord Byron had not yet
been to Court, it was not considered etiquette that he should appear before His Royal
Highness. He accordingly retired to another room. But on the Prince being informed that
Lord Byron was in the house, he expressed a desire to see him.

Lord Byron was sent for; he was introduced to the
Prince, and was so much pleased with his fascinating

BYRON AND SCOTT.

213

manner and entertaining conversation, that he declared it almost
made him a courtier. The Prince’s eulogistic references to Scott in the course of the interview reached the ears of Mr. Murray, who seized this opportunity to endeavour to
heal the breach which had been caused between Scott and Byron by the unguarded satire in ‘English Bards and Scotch Reviewers,’ and wrote
thus:—

I cannot refrain, notwithstanding my fears of intrusion, from
mentioning to you a conversation which Lord
Byron had with H.R.H. the Prince
Regent, and of which you formed the leading subject. He was at
an evening party at Miss Johnson’s this week, when
the Prince, hearing that Lord Byron was present, expressed
a desire to be introduced to him; and for more than half an hour they conversed
on poetry and poets, with which the Prince displayed an intimacy and critical
taste which at once surprised and delighted Lord Byron.
But the Prince’s great delight was Walter
Scott, whose name and writings he dwelt upon and recurred to
incessantly. He preferred him far beyond any other poet of the time, repeated
several passages with fervour, and criticized them faithfully. He spoke chiefly
of the ‘Lay of the Last
Minstrel,’ which he expressed himself as admiring most of the
three poems. He quoted Homer, and even some
of the obscurer Greek poets, and appeared, as Lord Byron
supposes, to have read more poetry than any prince in Europe. He paid, of
course, many compliments to Lord Byron, but the greatest
was “that he ought to be offended with Lord B., for that he had
thought it impossible for any poet to equal Walter
Scott, and that he had made him find himself
mistaken.” Lord Byron called upon me, merely to
let off the raptures of the Prince respecting you, thinking, as he said, that
if I were likely to have occasion to write to you, it might not be ungrateful
for you to hear of his praises. It is remarkable that the Prince never
mentioned Campbell. I inquired

214

MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY

particularly about this, as I was anxious to ascertain the
Prince’s opinion of both, as Lord Byron is rather
partial to Campbell. The Prince is really worthy of a
dedication, which, for many reasons, he would receive not only graciously, but
gratefully. I sent you, some time ago, the ‘Calamities of Authors,’ a work by
D’Israeli. It is much liked
here. If the book suit your taste, and if the office accord with your leisure,
I hope you may be tempted to favour me with a Review of it.* I trust that your
kindness may excuse the tittle-tattle which has occasioned this note; but I
could not persuade myself that it would be uninteresting to you to know that
you are equally esteemed by the Prince as I know you to be by the Princess.

I have been very silent, partly through pressure of business and
partly from idleness and procrastination, but it would be very ungracious to
delay returning my thanks for your kindness in transmitting the very flattering
particulars of the Prince Regent’s
conversation with Lord Byron. I trouble you
with a few lines to his Lordship expressive of my thanks for his very handsome
and gratifying communication, and I hope he will not consider it as intrusive
in a veteran author to pay my debt of gratitude for the high pleasure I have
received from the perusal of ‘Childe Harold,’ which is certainly the most original poem
which we have had this many a day . . . . .

* Scott’s acknowledgment of
this will be found in the preceding chapter.

BYRON: LUCIEN BONAPARTE.

215

This episode led to the opening of an agreeable correspondence between
Scott and Byron,
which resulted in a lasting friendship between the two poets. On September 5, 1812,
Lord Byron wrote to Mr.
Murray requesting him to send several despatches and a number of the Edinburgh Review.
“Send me ‘Rokeby,’” he said. “Who the deuce is he? . . . Also send me
‘Adair on Diet and
Regimen,’ just re-published by Ridgway.” Mr. Murray’s answer was
as follows:—

By the mail I have sent two letters, two parcels, and two
Reviews. Mr. Ridgway assures me that it
is impossible to complete a copy of the new edition of ‘Adair on Diet’ before
to-morrow or the day following.

The tardy engraver
promises the portrait in ten days, and I shall do myself the pleasure of
sending a copy, for your Lordship’s remarks, before it is prefixed to the
poem, the demand for which proceeds with undiminished vigour. I have now sold,
within a few copies, 4500 in less than six months, a sale so unprecedented,
except in one instance, that you should cease to reproach the public and the
publisher for “tardy editions.” You will readily believe that I am
delighted to find you thinking of a new poem, for which I should be proud to
give a thousand guineas, and I should ever gratefully remember the fame it
would cast over my new establishment, upon which I enter at the close of the
present month.

Since I had the pleasure of seeing you I have had occasion to
visit Lucien Bonaparte, to make arrangements
for his poem, which, with the translation, will form two
volumes in quarto, and which I am to publish immediately if his brother will
permit its circulation on the Continent. Lucien is
commanding and interesting in his person and address.

Walter Scott has, I am informed by his
intimate friend Mr. Heber, retained very
closely the subject of his new poem, which is, perhaps,
not impolitic. The name of

216

MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY

‘Rokeby’ is that of
his friend Mr. Morritt’s estate in
Yorkshire, to whom it is no doubt intended as a compliment. The poem, as the
publisher informs me, will not be published before Christmas.

Indeed, my Lord, I hope that you will cut the tugging strings of
care, and allow your mind to soar into its congenial element of poesy.

You will easily conceive my contempt for anything in the Anti-Jacobin
Review, when I venture to send you their vituperative
criticism without previous notice. I am ashamed to see how long I may have
trespassed upon your patience.

Lord Byron did not like the engraved portrait of
himself, to which he had a “very strong objection,” and he requested that the
plate might be destroyed, which was done accordingly.

In October 1812 Lord Byron wrote to
Mr. Murray from Cheltenham:—“I
have a poem on ‘Waltzing’ for
you, of which I make you a present; but it must be anonymous. It is in the old style of
‘English Bards and Scotch
Reviewers.’” On Oct. 22nd Murray
replied:—“I am distracted at this time between two houses, and am forced
to write in haste. I had a sale, to the Booksellers, on Tuesday, when I disposed of no
less than 878 copies of the fifth edition of ‘Childe Harold,’ from which you will judge of the
belief of the booksellers in its continuing success. I am anxious to be favoured with
the ‘Waltzing’.” A few days later,
Lord Byron added—“You go on boldly;
but have a care of glutting the public, who have by this time had enough of
‘Childe Harold.’ ‘Waltzing’ shall be

‘THE WALTZ’: DRURY LANE THEATRE.

217

prepared. It is rather above two
hundred lines, with an introductory letter to the publisher.”

‘The Waltz: an Apostrophic
Poem,’ was published anonymously, and against the inclination of Murray, who had a poor opinion of it, in February 1813,
but as the poem was not well received by the public, the author was anxious to disavow it.
“I hear,” he wrote to Mr. Murray, “that a
certain malicious publication on Waltzing is attributed to me. This report, I suppose,
you will take care to contradict, as the author, I am sure, will not like-that I should
wear his cap and bells.”

Being a member of the Drury Lane Managing Committee, Lord Byron had been requested, with many others, to write a Prologue, to be
recited at the opening of the theatre. Nearly a hundred prologues had been offered, but
Lord Byron’s was accepted, a preference which induced
“all Grub Street” to attack him. It was in reference to this circumstance that
Mr. Murray addressed him:—

I was present during the first recitation of the address, and can assure you that
it was received, throughout, with applauding satisfaction. I have inclosed the
copy of the address which I had in my hand, and on which I marked, with my
pencil—at the time, those parts at which the
warmest approbation was loudly expressed. There was not the slightest
demonstration or appearance of dissatisfaction at any one
point. There were many important variations in Mr. Elliston’s delivery, which was,
throughout, exceedingly bad; indeed his acting exhibits nothing but conceit. I
was surprised to find your name given up at once to the public, I confess, and
the appendage to the address, stating the reward offered
for the best copy of verses, appeared to reflect discredit and ridicule in
whatever way it was viewed.

I had the pleasure of receiving your obliging letter, dated the
23rd October, but was unwilling to intrude an answer upon you until something
important should cast up; and the occasion is now
furnished by the tremendous ‘Critique upon Lord Byron’s Address,’ which I enclose
under this and another cover. You declined writing the address originally,
because “you would not contend with all Grub Street;” but you did
not suspect, at that time, that success would induce all Grub Street to contend
against you; but this is the present state of the case. You will have seen by
the Chronicle of yesterday that it is in contemplation to collect
and publish, in one volume, the whole of the Rejected Addresses, which would be an
excellent subject of fun for an article in the Review, and Mr. Gifford would, I think, join forces with
you.

I shall be careful to give you full notice of the new edition of
‘Childe Harold,’
which has been very much assisted in sale by the admiration forced from the
ragamuffins who are abusing the Address. I would be delighted if you had a new
poem ready for publication about the same time that Walter Scott is expected; but I will sacrifice my right arm
(your Lordship’s friendship) rather than publish any poem not equal to
‘Childe Harold’ without a
conscriptive command, like that which I lately executed in committing your
portrait to the flames; but I had some consolation in seeing it ascend in
sparkling brilliancy to Parnassus. Neither Mr.
Gifford nor I, I can venture to assure you, upon honour, have
any notion who the author of the admirable article on ‘Horne Tooke’ is.

P.S.—I do not mention ‘Waltzing,’ from the hope that it
improves geometrically as to the time that it is retained.

‘THE GIAOUR.’

219

The fit of inspiration was now on Lord
Byron. In May 1813 appeared ‘The Giaour,’* and in the midst of his corrections of successive editions
of it, he wrote in four nights his second Turkish Story
‘Zuleika,’ afterwards known as ‘The Bride of Abydos.’

“The ‘Bride,’” says Byron,“was
written in four nights to distract my dreams from . . . Were it not thus, it had never
been composed; and had I not done something at that time, I must have gone mad by
eating my own heart—bitter diet!” “No one has seen it,”
he writes in his Diary, “but Hodgson and
Mr. Gifford.”
“Hodgson likes it better than ‘The Giaour,’ but nobody else will,—and he
never liked the ‘Fragment.’ I am sure, had it not been for Murray, that never would have been published, though
the circumstances, which are the groundwork, make it . . . . heigh-ho!”

Some time ago I mentioned that I had sent the fifth Edition of
‘The Giaour’ to
Mr. Gifford. I did not expect him to
touch it except for the purpose of sending it to our reviewer, who has totally
disappointed us. I called to-day upon Mr. G., and as soon as a gentleman who
was present had gone, and he was ready to begin your business, he fell back in
his largest armchair, and exclaimed, “Upon my honour, Murray, Lord
Byron is a most extraordinary man. The new edition of his
poem contains passages of exquisite—extraordinary beauty (I recollect
now that he said they astonished him)—equal to anything that I have
ever read.

* With respect to the passage in which the lines
occur—

“Though in Time’s record it was nought,

It was eternity in thought,”

Lord Byron told Mr. Murray that he took this idea
from one of the Arabian
tales—that in which the Sultan puts his head into
a butt of water, and, though it remains there for only two or three
minutes, he imagines that he lives many years during that time. The
story had been quoted by Addison in the Spectator.

220

MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY

What is he about? Will he not collect all his force
for one immortal work? His subject is an excellent one. We never had
descriptions of Eastern manners before. All that has been hitherto
attempted was done without actual knowledge.” I told him that
Moore was writing an Eastern story.
“Moore,” said he, “will do only
what has been already done, and he is incapable of writing anything like
Lord Byron.” Mr.
Gifford spoke too of the vigour of all your additions.
Speaking of Scott, he said you did not interfere with each
other, but that he had completely settled in his mind your certain superiority
or genius of a higher order. I told him how rejoiced I was to hear him speak
thus of you, and added that I knew you cherished his letter to you. He again
deplored your wanderings from some great object, and regretted that you would
not follow his recommendation of producing something worthy of you; for, highly
as he thinks of your talents in both poems, and I believe most particularly in
the last, still he thinks you have by no means stretched your pinions to the
full, and taken the higher flight to which they are equal. I would apologise to
you for detailing what superficially appears mere
praise; but I am sure you will go deeper into the subject, and see in it my
anxiety after your fame alone.

In our next number there will be an able
review of the Fifth Edition, though the Edinburgh
Review had anticipated our extracts. At Madame de Staël’s yesterday, you
were the subject of much conversation, with Sir
James Mackintosh and Conversation
Sharp. Sir James asked and was astonished
at the number of copies sold of ‘The Giaour,’ and a lady (not very young though) took away a
copy of ‘The Giaour’ by the talismanic
effect of the enclosed card. Do me the kindness to tell me when you propose to
return. I am at Home for the remainder of the season,
and until the termination of all seasons, and am,

I am so very anxious to procure the best criticism upon the
‘Bride,’ that I
ventured last night to introduce her to the protection of Mr. Frere. He has just returned, quite
delighted; he read several passages to Mr.
Heber as exquisitely beautiful. He says there is a simplicity
running through the whole that reminds him of the ancient ballad. He thinks it
equal to anything you have produced. I asked if it was equal to the
‘Giaour;’ he
said that the ‘Giaour’ contained perhaps
a greater number of splendid passages, but that the mind carries something to
rest upon after rising from the ‘Bride of Abydos.’ It is more perfect. He made one
or two remarks. He says that such words as Gul and Bulbul, though not
unpoetical in themselves, are in bad taste, and ought not to receive the
sanction of your Lordship’s example. In the passage, stanza ix. pp.
12-13, which Mr. Frere thought particularly fine, he
thinks that the dimness of sight occasioned by abstraction of mind is rendered
less complete by defining the fatal stroke as right
sharply dealt.

With respect to the business arrangement as to the two poems, Mr. Murray wrote to Lord
Byron as follows:—

I am very anxious that our business transactions should occur
frequently, and that they should be settled immediately; for short accounts are
favourable to long friendships.

I restore ‘The
Giaour’ to your Lordship entirely, and for it, the
‘Bride of
Abydos,’ and the miscellaneous poems intended to fill up the
volume of the small edition, I beg leave to offer you the sum of One Thousand
Guineas; and I shall be happy if you perceive that my estimation of your
talents in my character of a man of business is not much under my admiration of
them as a man.

I do most heartily accept the offer of your portrait, as

222

MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY

the most noble mark of friendship with which you could in
any way honour me. I do assure you that I am truly proud of being distinguished
as your publisher, and that I shall ever continue,

With reference to the foregoing letter we read in Lord Byron’s ‘Diary,’—

“Mr. Murray has offered me
one thousand guineas for ‘The
Giaour’ and ‘The Bride of
Abydos.’ I won’t. It is too much: though I am strongly tempted,
merely for the say of it. No bad price for a fortnight’s (a week each)
what?—the gods know. It was intended to be called poetry.”

“Before I left town for Yorkshire, you said that you were ready and
willing to give five hundred guineas for the copyright of ‘The Giaour;’ and my answer was—from which I
do not mean to recede—that we would discuss the point at Christmas. The new story
may or may not succeed; the probability, under present circumstances, seems to be that
it may at least pay its expenses: but even that remains to be proved, and till it is
proved one way or the other, we will say nothing about it. Thus, then, be it: I will
postpone all arrangement about it, and ‘The
Giaour’ also, till Easter, 1814; and you will then, according to your own
notions of fairness, make your own offer for the two. At the same time, I do not rate
the last, in my own estimation, at half ‘The
Giaour;’ and according to your own notions of its worth and its success
within the time mentioned, be the addition or deduction to or from whatever sum may be
your proposal for the first, which has already had its success.”

‘The Corsair’ was
Lord Byron’s next poem, written with great
vehemence, literally “struck off at a heat,” at the rate of about two hundred
lines a day,—“a circumstance,” says Moore, “that is, perhaps, wholly without a parallel in the
history of genius.” ‘The Corsair’ was
begun on the 18th, and finished on the 31st of December, 1813.

A sudden impulse induced Lord Byron to
present the copyright of this poem also to Mr.
Dallas, with the single stipulation that he would offer it for publication
to Mr. Murray, who eventually paid Mr.
Dallas five hundred guineas for the copyright, and the work was published in
February 1814. The following letters will give some idea of the reception it met with.

I have been unwilling to write until I had something to say, an
occasion to which I do not always restrict myself. I am most happy to tell you
that your last poem is—what Mr.
Southey’s is called—a Carmen Triumphale. Never, in
my recollection, has any work, since the “Letter of Burke to the Duke of
Bedford,” excited such a ferment—a ferment which I am
happy to say will subside into lasting fame. I sold, on the day of
publication,—a thing perfectly unprecedented—10,000 copies; and I
suppose thirty people, who were purchasers (strangers), called to tell the
people in the shop how much they had been delighted and satisfied. Mr. Moore says it is masterly,—a
wonderful performance. Mr. Hammond,
Mr. Heber, D’Israeli, every one who
comes,—and too many call for me to enumerate—declare their
unlimited approbation. Mr. Ward was here
with Mr. Gifford yesterday, and mingled
his admiration with the rest. Mr. Ward is much delighted
with the unexpected charge of the Dervis—

“Up rose the Dervis, with that burst of light,”

and Gifford did what I never knew him do
before—he

224

MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY

repeated several passages from memory,
particularly the closing stanza,—

“His death yet dubious, deeds too widely known.”

Indeed, from what I have observed, from the very general and unvarying
sentiment which I have now gathered, the suffrages are decidedly in favour of
this poem in preference to the ‘Bride of Abydos,’ and are even now balancing with
‘The Giaour.’ I
have heard no one pass without noticing, and without expressing regret at, the
idea thrown out by your Lordship of writing no more for a considerable time. I
am really marking down, without suppression or extension, literally what I have
heard. I was with Mr. Shee this morning,
to whom I had presented the poem; and he declared himself to have been
delighted, and swore he had long placed you far beyond any contemporary bard;
and, indeed, your last poem does, in the opinion of almost all that I have
conversed with. I have the highest encomiums in letters from Croker and Mr.
Hay; but I rest most upon the warm feeling it has created in
Gifford’s critical heart. The versification is
thought highly of indeed. After printing the poems at the end of the first
edition, I transplanted them to ‘Childe Harold,’ conceiving that you would have the goodness
to pardon this ruse to give additional impetus to that
poem, and to assist in making it a more respectable thickness. I sent, previous
to publication, copies to all your friends, containing the poems at the end;
and one of them has provoked a great deal of discussion, so much so, that I
expect to sell off the whole edition of ‘Childe
Harold’ merely to get at it. You have no notion of the
sensation which the publication has occasioned; and my only regret is that you
were not present to witness it

I earnestly trust that your Lordship is well: and with ardent
compliments,

P.S.—I have very strong reasons to believe that the
Bookseller at Newark continues
to reprint—not altering the Edition—your
early poems. Perhaps you would ascertain this fact.

BYRON AND HIS CRITICS.

225

With regard to the transference of some separate verses from the ‘Corsair’ to ‘Childe Harold,’ to which Mr. Murray alludes, Byron wrote on
February 5: “On second and third thoughts the withdrawing the small poems from the
‘Corsair’ (even to add to ‘Childe Harold’) looks like shrinking
and shuffling after the fuss made upon them by one of the Tories.”

I have allowed myself to indulge in the pleasure I derived from
the expression of your satisfaction, because I have anticipated the point upon
which there was likely to be some uneasiness. As soon as I perceived the fuss
that was made about certain
lines, I caused them to be immediately reinstated; and I wrote on
Saturday to inform you that I had done so. A conviction of duty made me do
this. I can assure you, with the most unreserved sincerity, that ‘Childe Harold’ did not
require the insertion of the lines which have made so much noise to assist its
sale; but they made it still more attractive, and my sordid propensities got
the better of me. I sold at once nearly a thousand copies of this new edition;
and I am convinced, by the collected and unshaken opinions of the best critics,
that it is just as certain of becoming a Classic, as Thomson or Dryden. What delights me is, that amidst the most decided
applause, there is a constant difference as to which is the best of your poems. Gifford
declared to me again, the other day, that you would last far beyond any poet of
the present day. I tried him particularly as to Campbell, but he had not a doubt about the certainty of your
passing him. Although, therefore, I may concur with you in feeling; some little
surprise at such unprecedented triumph over people’s prejudices, yet I
can differ, upon very solid reasons, from your notion of “temporary
reputation.” I declare that I have not heard one expression of
disappointment or doubtful satisfaction upon reading ‘The Corsair,’ which bids fair to be the
most popular of your poems. You cannot meet a man in the street who has not
read or heard read ‘The Corsair.’

226

MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY

The facsimile is restored to ‘Childe Harold,’ only 200 copies having
been sent out without it. The poem on the ‘Skull Cup’ is introduced. I long to have the
pleasure of congratulating your Lordship personally. Your noble conduct to a
schoolfellow does not lessen the admiration with
which I remain, &c.,

While ‘The
Corsair’ was in the press, Lord Byron
dedicated it to Mr. Moore; and at the end of the
poem he added ‘Stanzas on a Lady
Weeping.’ When the work appeared with his name on the titlepage, he was
attacked in the leading newspapers; and his life, his sentiments, and his works, were
violently assailed. The Courier alleged of him that he had received large sums of money for his
writings. Lord Byron was extremely galled by these attacks, and
permitted Mr. Dallas to defend his character in the
newspapers.

“I take upon me,” said Mr.
Dallas, “to affirm that Lord
Byron never received a shilling for any of his works. To my certain
knowledge, the profits of ‘The
Satire’ were left entirely to the publisher of it. The gift of the
copyright of ‘Childe Harold’s
Pilgrimage,’ I have already publicly acknowledged, in the dedication
of the new edition of my novels; and I now add my acknowledgment for that of
‘The Corsair;’ not only
for the profitable part of it, but for the delicate and delightful manner of bestowing
it, while yet unpublished. With respect to his two other poems, ‘The Giaour’ and ‘The Bride of Abydos,’ Mr. Murray, the publisher of them, can truly attest
that no part of the sale of those has ever touched his Lordship’s hands, or been
disposed of for his use.”

Lord Byron himself said of this
letter:—“Dallas had, perhaps,
have better kept silence; but that was his concern, and as his facts are correct, and
his motive not dishonourable to himself, I wished him well through it.”

ment published in the
Courier, on different
grounds. Byron had at first expressed his intention of
giving the publisher the copyright of ‘The
Giaour,’ though he afterwards consented to receive one thousand guineas
for it and ‘The Bride of Abydos.’
But his subsequent transfer of this sum to Dallas,
however galling to Mr. Murray, did not absolve the
publisher from his agreement with Lord Byron.

You appeared to be so satisfactorily convinced that silence
would be most becoming, that I wrote the note to Mr. Dallas late on Saturday evening, with the hope of
preventing the publication of his letter. The meaning of the
“expressions” pointed out by you in my note is, that having
formerly told Mr. Gifford, Mr. Hammond, Mr.
Frere, Mr. Ward, Mr. Canning, and many other of my friends,
that you had given me the copyright of ‘The Giaour,’ and having had occasion
subsequently to unsay this, it would be placing my assertions in a very
doubtful light, if I allow it to be insinuated publicly that I am to pay
nothing for this poem, or for ‘The Bride of Abydos.’ You do not seem to be aware that I feel as
much bound by my promise to pay you a thousand guineas for the copyright of
‘The Giaour’ and ‘Bride of Abydos’ in May next,
as I am by my bond to give Lord Sheffield
£1000 for ‘Gibbon.’

My expression to Madame de
Staël was, not that I had actually “paid,” but
that I had “given” you 1000 guineas for these two poems, because it
is as much as the 500 guineas for ‘The Corsair,’ which I am to pay in two,
four, and six months; and I must confess that at the time I stated this
circumstance to Madame de Staël, I was not aware of
your liberal intentions with regard to this sum; for I did not then conceive it
possible that you would have resumed your gift of ‘The Giaour’ to me, to bestow it on
another; and, therefore, the explanation of that part of Mr. Dallas’s letter which refers to me
is, that although Lord Byron has not
actually received anything for ‘The

228

MEMOIRS OF JOHN MURRAY

Giaour’ and ‘Bride,’ yet I am under an engagement to pay him a thousand
guineas for them in May.

But, as Mr.
Dallas’s letter was published, and as your Lordship
appeared to approve of it, I said nothing; nor should I have said anything
further if you had not commanded this explanation. I declare I think these
things are very unworthy a place in your mind. Why allow “a blight on our
blade” to prevent you from reaping and revelling in the rich and
superabundant harvest of Fame, which your inspired labours have created? I am
sure, my Lord, if you will give the matter reflection, my conduct towards you
has uniformly been that of a very humble, but very faithful friend.

I have the honour to be, Your Lordship’s obliged and obedient
Servant,

The ‘Ode to Napoleon
Bonaparte,’ which appeared in April 1814, was on the whole a failure. It
was known to be Lord Byron’s, and its publication
was seized upon by the press as the occasion for many bitter criticisms, mingled with
personalities against the writer’s genius and character. He was cut to the quick by
these notices, and came to the determination to buy back the whole of the copyrights of his
works, and suppress every line he had ever written. On the 29th of April, 1814, he wrote to
Mr. Murray:—

I enclose a draft for the money; when paid, send the
copyrights. I release you from the thousand pounds agreed on for ‘The Giaour’ and ‘Bride,’ and there’s an
end. . . . For all this, it might be well to assign some reason. I have none to
give, except my own caprice, and I do not consider the circumstance of
consequence enough to require explanation. . . . It will give me great pleasure
to preserve your

‘LARA’ AND ‘JACQUELINE.’

229

acquaintance, and to
consider you as my friend. Believe me very truly, and for much attention,

Mr. Murray was of course very much concerned at this
determination. He appealed with good effect to his lordship’s considerateness and
good nature; and three days later, Lord Byron revoked
his determination. To Mr. Murray, he wrote (1 May, 1814):—

“If your present note is serious, and it really would be
inconvenient, there is an end of the matter; tear my draft, and go on as usual: in that
case, we will recur to our former basis.”

Before the end of the month, Lord Byron
began the composition of his next poem ‘Lara,’ usually considered a continuation of ‘The Corsair.’ It was published conjointly with
Mr. Rogers’s ‘Jacqueline.’
“Rogers and I,” said Lord
Byron to Moore, “have
almost coalesced into a joint invasion of the public. Whether it will take place or
not, I do not yet know, and I am afraid ‘Jacqueline’ (which is very beautiful) will be in bad company. But in this
case, the lady will not be the sufferer.”

Mr. Rogers called to-day with his poem
to be printed with yours. I send the first sheet of Gifford’s copy of the proof. The rest I will get (if not
to-day) to-morrow. Mr. Ward has read the
proof, and admires the poem greatly. I suggested if it were not too
semblable —he said it
showed uncommon talent to exhibit the same portrait in so many lights.

I am really grateful for your obliging sufferance of my desire
to publish ‘Lara;’ for
I am sure you know that the respect I bear you in every way would not have
allowed me to do this without your consent. I had anticipated this, and had
done everything but actually deliver the copies of ‘Lara;’
and the moment I received your letter, for for it I waited, I cut the last cord
of my aerial work, and at this instant six thousand copies are gone! I have
sent copies, I believe, to every one of your friends; and, without an
exception, they are delighted, and their praise is most particularly and
rootedly confirmed on a second perusal, which proves to
them that your researches into the human heart and character are at once
wonderful and just. Mr. Frere likes the
poem greatly, and particularly admires the first canto. I mentioned the passage
in the second canto—descriptive of the morning after the battle, which
delighted me so much, and indeed Mr.
Wilmot and many other persons. His remark was that he thought it
rather too shocking. This is perhaps a little fastidious. Sir Jno. Malcolm, whom I have not seen since,
called to express his satisfaction; and by the way, I may add that
Mr. Frere has been here this moment to take another
copy with him to read again in his carriage. He told me that Mr. Canning liked it equally. Mr.
Frere, and in his report, Mr. Canning, are
the only persons who have spoken in praise of ‘Jacqueline’; but they say it is
beautiful, and this is a host. There is an obvious tendency to disparage
‘Jacqueline,’ but I think it is
unjust and will be overcome.

Against the formidable attack upon my advertisement, I feel
“perfectly secure.” Imprimis, the words are Gifford’s. In the second place,
Mr. Frere denies that they are not
grammar, and in the third place no other person has noticed them, and those to
whom I suggested the alleged incorrectness agree that they can be noticed only
by fastidiousness and hypercriticism of friendship. Who, in such a poem, would
stop for a moment at a word in the preface? Moreover, here is Johnson for you, and
(thank God) for your publisher, who, now that his author is found

‘LARRY AND JACQUY.’

231

out to be Dryden, is I suppose to be treated like
Tonson, but to
Johnson:

That (1) not this

(2) which; relating to an antecedent thing—

“The mark that is set before
him.”—Perkins.

“The time that clogs
me.”—Shakespeare.

“Bones that hasten to be
so.”—Cowley.

“Judgment that is
equal.”—Wilkins.

Are you answered?

Mr. Merivale is here, and subscribes to
the opinion in favour of that.

I felt more about the publication of these lines than I could
express, and therefore I said nothing. It was most shameful to print at all,
but with the name it was villanous. I saw them only in the Chronicle, and I rejoice
that they did not originate with our friend Perry—they spoil that tone of harmony towards your
Lordship which had been so powerfully struck into the public mind by Jeffrey; everybody thinks highly of the talent
of the article in the E. R., and is in accord with its sentiments throughout.

I must remain some days yet to watch the progress of the demand
for ‘Lara;’ and
therefore, as I could not attend my family to Scotland, I rather think of going
to Paris first, and afterwards to the North. You do not tell me, and perhaps
cannot, the time of your return. I have now deciphered the last part of your
note, made obscure by the erasure of some valuable remarks, and rejoice that I
shall have the pleasure of seeing you in town next week.

I enclose a letter, not without most serious compunctions,
which shall not be excited upon any similar occasion. I rejoice to hear that
you are yet making improvements upon ‘The Giaour.’ It is a series of gems that
well deserve the finest polish.

We are rather dull here, though the place is quite full, for
the Prince Regent’s appearance or
behaviour either prevented from coming, or drove away from the place, all
respectable people. He was more outrageously dissipated the short time he was
here than ever, and he has sunk into the company of the vilest of his former
associates, Lord Barrymore, &c.

Lord Sheffield has been so good as to
invite me to pass some days at his house, where I shall go on Wednesday, in
case you have occasion to write.

Joseph Addison (1672-1719)
English politician and man of letters, with his friend Richard Steele he edited The Spectator (1711-12). He was the author of the tragedy Cato (1713).

Henry Charles William Angelo (1756-1835)
Fencing master, author of The School of Fencing (1787) and Reminiscences (1830). Educated at Eton, Angelo was on familiar terms
with many persons of fashion in London, including Byron.

Henry Barry, eighth earl of Barrymore (1770-1823)
Son of the sixth earl; educated at Exeter College, Oxford, he succeeded to the title in
1793 and was a companion of the Prince Regent who died intestate.

Lucien Bonaparte (1775-1840)
Brother of Napoleon; he was captured by the British while attempting to flee to the
United States. He lived under house arrest in England (1810-14) while working on his epic
poem on Napoleon.

Thomas Bruce, seventh earl of Elgin (1766-1841)
British ambassador to Constantinople (1799); with the permission of the Turks he removed
the Parthenon marbles which were purchased for the British Museum in 1816.

Thomas Campbell (1777-1844)
Scottish poet and man of letters; author of The Pleasures of Hope
(1799), Gertrude of Wyoming (1808) and lyric odes. He edited the New Monthly Magazine (1821-30).

George Canning (1770-1827)
Tory statesman; he was foreign minister (1807-1809) and prime minister (1827); a
supporter of Greek independence and Catholic emancipation.

Queen Caroline of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (1768-1821)
Married the Prince of Wales in 1795 and separated in 1796; her husband instituted
unsuccessful divorce proceedings in 1820 when she refused to surrender her rights as
queen.

James Cawthorne (1832 fl.)
London bookseller who published Byron's English Bards and Scotch
Reviewers (1809); he had a shop at 132 Strand from 1810-32.

John Wilson Croker (1780-1857)
Secretary of the Admiralty (1810) and writer for the Quarterly
Review; he edited an elaborate edition of Boswell's Life of
Johnson (1831).

Isaac D'Israeli (1766-1848)
English essayist and literary biographer; author of Curiosities of
Literature (1791). Father of the prime minister.

Charlotte Dacre [née King] [Rosa Matilda] (1782 c.-1825)
English poetess, daughter of the radical writer John King; she published in the Morning Post and Morning Herald under the
name “Rosa Matilda.” In 1815 she married Nicholas Byrne, owner and editor of the Morning Post.

Robert Charles Dallas (1754-1824)
English poet, novelist, and translator who corresponded with Byron. His sister Charlotte
Henrietta Dallas (d. 1793) married Captain George Anson Byron (1758-1793); their son George
Anson Byron (1789-1868) inherited Byron's title in 1824.

John Dryden (1631-1700)
English poet laureate, dramatist, and critic; author of Of Dramatick
Poesie (1667), Absalom and Achitophel (1681), Alexander's Feast; or the Power of Musique (1697), The Works of Virgil translated into English Verse (1697), and Fables (1700).

John Hookham Frere (1769-1846)
English diplomat and poet; educated at Eton and Cambridge, he was envoy to Lisbon
(1800-02) and Madrid (1802-04, 1808-09); with Canning conducted the The
Anti-Jacobin (1797-98); author of Prospectus and Specimen of an
intended National Work, by William and Robert Whistlecraft (1817, 1818).

William Gifford (1756-1826)
Poet, scholar, and editor who began as a shoemaker's apprentice; after Oxford he
published The Baviad (1794), The Maeviad
(1795), and The Satires of Juvenal translated (1802) before becoming
the founding editor of the Quarterly Review (1809-24).

George Hammond (1763-1853)
Friend of George Canning and one of the editors of The
Anti-Jacobin; he was under-secretary for foreign affairs (1795-1806). The Quarterly Review was first proposed by Canning at a dinner party at
Hammond's house.

Robert William Hay (1786-1861)
After education at Christ Church, Oxford, he was private secretary to Viscount Melville,
first lord of the Admiralty (1812) and permanent under-secretary of state for the colonies
(1825).

Richard Heber (1774-1833)
English book collector, he was the elder half-brother of the poet Reginald Heber and the
friend of Walter Scott: member of the Roxburghe Club and MP for Oxford 1821-1826.

Prince Hoare (1755-1834)
English painter and playwright; he was the author of a popular farce, No Song, No Supper (1790) and was appointed honorary foreign secretary to the
Royal Academy.

John Cam Hobhouse, baron Broughton (1786-1869)
Founder of the Cambridge Whig Club; traveled with Byron in the orient, radical MP for
Westminster (1820); Byron's executor; after a long career in politics published Some Account of a Long Life (1865) later augmented as Recollections of a Long Life, 6 vols (1909-1911).

Francis Hodgson (1781-1852)
Provost of Eton College, translator of Juvenal (1807) and close friend of Byron. He wrote
for the Monthly and Critical Reviews, and was
author of (among other volumes of poetry) Childe Harold's Monitor; or
Lines occasioned by the last Canto of Childe Harold (1818).

John Hopkins (1520-1570)
With Thomas Sternhold he translated the Psalms in the versions used in sixteenth and
seventeenth-century Anglican prayer-books; their paired names became a byword for poor
poetry.

Sir Robert John Wilmot- Horton, third baronet (1784-1841)
Byron's cousin; he was MP for Newcastle under Lyme (1818-30), governor of Ceylon
(1831-37), and was Augusta Leigh's representative at the destruction of Byron's memoir; he
succeeded to his title in 1834.

John Jackson [Gentleman Jackson] (1769-1845)
Pugilist; champion of England from 1795 to 1804, when he was defeated by Jem Belcher.
After retirement he established a school that became headquarters of the Pugilistic
Club.

Francis Jeffrey, Lord Jeffrey (1773-1850)
Scottish barrister, Whig MP, and co-founder and editor of the Edinburgh
Review (1802-29). As a reviewer he was the implacable foe of the Lake School of
poetry.

Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
English man of letters, among many other works he edited A Dictionary
of the English Language (1755) and Shakespeare (1765), and wrote Lives of the Poets (1779-81).

Thomas Norton Longman (1771-1842)
A leading London publisher whose authors included Southey, Wordsworth, Scott, and
Moore.

Sir James Mackintosh (1765-1832)
Scottish philosopher and man of letters who defended the French Revolution in Vindiciae Gallicae (1791); he was Recorder of Bombay (1803-1812) and
MP for Knaresborough (1819-32).

Sir John Malcolm (1769-1833)
Indian administrator and diplomat; author of Political History of
India (1811); his life of Clive was posthumously published in 1836.

John Herman Merivale (1779-1844)
English poet and translator, friend of Francis Hodgson, author of Orlando in Ronscevalles: a Poem (1814). He married Louisa Drury, daughter of the
headmaster at Harrow, and wrote for the Monthly Review while
pursuing a career in the law.

William Richard Beckford Miller (1769-1844)
Albemarle-Street bookseller; he began publishing in 1790; shortly after he rejected
Byron's Childe Harold in 1811 his stock and premises were purchased
by John Murray.

Thomas Moore (1779-1852)
Irish poet and biographer, author of the Irish Melodies (1807-34),
The Fudge Family in Paris (1818), and Lalla
Rookh (1817); he was Byron's close friend and designated biographer.

John Murray II (1778-1843)
The second John Murray began the Quarterly Review in 1809 and
published works by Scott, Byron, Austen, Crabbe, and other literary notables.

James Northcote (1746-1831)
English portrait-painter and writer who exhibited at the Royal Academy; he wrote a Life of Titian (1830).

James Perry (1756-1821)
Whig journalist; founder and editor of the European Magazine
(1782), editor of the Morning Chronicle (1790-1821).

John Ridge (1828 fl.)
Byron's original printer, at Newark near Newstead Abbey in Nottinghamshire; trade records
indicate that he worked as a bookseller, stationer, and printer from 1788 to 1828. He
married a Miss Hilton, 18 July 1805.

James Ridgway (1745-1838)
London bookseller who began trading in 1784; he was imprisoned in 1793 for printing
Thomas Paine's Rights of Man.

Robert Southey (1774-1843)
Poet laureate and man of letters whose contemporary reputation depended upon his prose
works, among them the Life of Nelson, 2 vols (1813), History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (1823-32) and The Doctor, 7 vols (1834-47).

Germaine de Staël (1766-1817)
French woman of letters; author of the novel Corinne, ou L'Italie
(1807) and De l'Allemagne (1811); banned from Paris by Napoleon, she
spent her later years living in Germany, Britain, and Switzerland.

Thomas Sternhold (d. 1549)
English courtier; with John Hopkins (d. 1570) produced a metrically irregular and
much-abused translation of the Psalms.

James Thomson (1700-1748)
Anglo-Scottish poet and playwright; while his descriptive poem, The
Seasons (1726-30), was perhaps the most popular poem of the eighteenth century,
the poets tended to admire more his Spenserian burlesque, The Castle of
Indolence (1748).

Jacob Tonson (1655-1736)
London bookseller and member of the Kit-Kat Club; the elder Tonson published Dryden; his
son, also Jacob Tonson (1682-1735), published Pope.

John William Ward, earl of Dudley (1781-1833)
The son of William Ward, third Viscount Dudley (d. 1823); educated at Edinburgh and
Oxford, he was an English MP, sometimes a Foxite Whig and sometimes Canningite Tory, who
suffered from insanity in his latter years.

The Anti-Jacobin Review and Magazine. (1798-1821). Edited by John Gifford as a continuation of the brilliant Anti-Jacobin
Magazine (1797-98) with no plates, less poetry, and more book reviews.

The Courier. (1792-1842). A London evening newspaper; the original proprietor was James Perry; Daniel Stuart, Peter
Street, and William Mudford were editors; among the contributors were Samuel Taylor
Coleridge and John Galt.

Morning Chronicle. (1769-1862). James Perry was proprietor of this London daily newspaper from 1789-1821; among its many
notable poetical contributors were Coleridge, Southey, Lamb, Rogers, and Campbell.

The Quarterly Review. (1809-1967). Published by John Murray, the Quarterly was instigated by Walter
Scott as a Tory rival to the Edinburgh Review. It was edited by
William Gifford to 1824, and by John Gibson Lockhart from 1826 to 1853.

The Spectator. (1711-1714). Essays from the Spectator, conducted by Addison and Steele, were
collected in five volumes and frequently reprinted.

The Arabian Nights. (1705-08 English trans.). Also known as The Thousand and One Nights. Antoine Galland's
French translation was published 1704-17, from which the original English versions were
taken.